Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relativty – An open-source VR headset

relativty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 235 posts

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#111

Post by sfteus »

utopcell wrote: post #13

This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even if tracking was working perfectly, this wo…

They mention in the build guide that the display is sometimes available for $150, that's probably how it gets to around $200. MPU-6050 appears to be about $30, main PCB is claimed to be $5 or so, another $5 for the lens and foam respectively, and $10 for the strap. That'd bring it in at $205 provided you already had the capability to 3D print and solder and didn't factor in the material cost for those. It's unlikely, but you could probably make it happen.

I assume you could downscale the display to like a 1080p version to save costs as well.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#112

Post by andybak »

SamBam wrote: post #95
andybak wrote: post #47

I'll repeat a comment I made on Reddit: I was scanning the page trying to understand how you were doing positional tracking. Took me a while to realise that's what you mean by "Experimental room-scaling" I'd suggest that this isn't the best wording. Call it "positional tracking" or "6DOF" or something. The whole "room scale" thing was confusing at the start and isn't used much nowadays (Is seated 6DOF VR "room scale"…

Oh, I thought it was a cool mode that made your current room look huge or tiny. A sort of "Alice in Wonderland" mode.

Yeah. The term arose around the time the Vive was released to distinguish against the Oculus Rift. It was a fairly subtle distinction - the Rift at that time was optimised for front-facing experiences because it came with two cameras you usually mounted on each side of your monitor. If you moved out of their cone or occluded them by turning around too much then it would lose tracking so most games assumed you'd mostly be facing forward.

The Vive on the other hand had tracking that was usually mounted in opposite corners of the room. Two trackers were more than capable of covering an average sized room and the only limitation on your movement was cable tangle.

The Rift tracking got a lot better eventually - even with two cameras.

The other meaning of the term is sometimes to distinguish between VR that can track the headset position (6DOF) as well as it's rotation (3DOF). But all serious VR is 6DOF nowadays. 3DOF is pretty much the domain of "slide your phone in this thing" VR or headsets that are intended mainly for viewing 360 video.

So - two different meanings of "room scale" that mean quite different things.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#113

Post by gri3v3r »

Fabricio20 wrote: post #48

One interesting thing I noticed is that this project ALSO doesn't seem to have a controller. You can't really play SteamVR games without at least one! (Issue #50) You can grab a Samsung VR for very cheap, put a phone on it and do VirtualDesktop magic, but you are still gonna struggle without controllers. Same for Google Cardboard and other similar projects. There's some very cheap controllers you can get, with base s…

Unfortunately, these projects have been discontinued.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#114

Post by bsza »

utopcell wrote: post #13

This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even if tracking was working perfectly, this wo…

> Even if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut down version of an Oculus Go

Oculus Go doesn't have position tracking. I don't know what you're talking about.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#116

Post by prophesi »

marcinzm wrote: post #85
wolco wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a valid retort and trying to hide that fact when comparing doesn't do it justice.

The fact is well known and obvious to anyone so I don't see how anything is being hidden by anyone.

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. The fact still stands that it's an achievement for an open source DIY project to come close to Oculus Go specs. The original comment was asking a rhetorical question to make that point.

If Oculus Go was open source, it would cost you much more than the retail price to manufacture it.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#117

Post by numpad0 »

coronadisaster wrote: post #81
metalliqaz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm pretty sure the $200 quote is an "it's possible" type thing, like where car companies quote prices "from" the lowest-spec version.

Can you ever buy a car at advertised price? Excluding taxes... Im trying to buy a motorcycle and the dealers tag on 20% in fees

I figured THE base configuration are for corporate uses. Plain iron exhaust, no hubcaps, flat paint, manual air conditioning, multi band AM radio and the likes. Sales reps worldwide are driving in that configuration but dealerships that don’t expect business customers probably don’t stock them.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#119

Post by gorkish »

noxer wrote: post #10

Daily reminder: 2K doesn't really exist. Yes by definition anything with around 2000 pixels vertical would be 2K but that would mean FHD is 2K because it almost 2000 pixels wide. The display in question here is 1440x1440 That is not 2K. Sure there are two next to each other that would mean 2880 pixels horizontal but the image you see cant have this resolution. Also that would be 3K not 2K. So pls everyone stop the no…

2K was/is a real specification that defined and used in digital cinema well before consumer TV's got near to these resolutions.

DCI specifies a few 2k resolutions based on aspect ratio: 2048x1080/24 full Frame, 2048x858/24 for Scope, and 1998x1080 for Flat. Basically any crop of the full frame image with either the maximum width or height is still 2K.

There's probably not a lot of value in beating that dead horse anyway; I have a sneaking suspicion this is all just a typo. Most devices containing a display like this are usually digital cameras or imaging instruments which almost always market the raw pixel count ahead of screen resolution. This is probably generally advertised and specified as a 2MP display not a 2K display.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#120

Post by numpad0 »

nl wrote: post #57
utopcell wrote: post #13

This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even if tracking was working perfectly, this wo…

I think the (repeated) note that you can downscale to 1080p displays is how you are supposed to do it under $200. They note themselves these displays are $150-$190 so it's not like they are hiding something.

High resolution(> QVGA) display panels is difficult to come by, especially at small quantity-per-months.

Those in the form of Raspberry Pi or Arduino parts are more accessible but still not cheap and not so high resolution.

Post reply on HN